About your Search

20130121
20130129
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3 (some duplicates have been removed)
on the bigger issues of foreign policy. ultimately the security of our diplomats depens on the host country. this is all a discussion about there might have been five security people on the ground if only there was more funning and deployment and that cable and this cable, there would have been eight or nine that might have led to more protection or more casualties. here in washington the decision was made to provide well more than 16 security people to libya. nobody that i know of in washington was involved in the issue of how many of those were in benghazi going with the ambassador or there in advance. the decision that all 16 weren't with him was a decision that you can't blame either political party or anyone in washington for. ultimately all we can have is enough to stave off a militant attack for a few hours and after that if the host country doesn't come to the rescue, it doesn't matter whether we have 3, 6, 12, 16, or 36 armed guards and marines at the location. one aspect of protecting our diplomats in the future is bringing to justice the criminal who is did this this time. we did
is the whole point about this and informs the foreign policy and the difference maybe why a filmmaker is currently in jail and we agreed that the moment was sort of like a rorschach test. if you like her, that's a great victory. maybe if you don't you saw that as pretty damaging. what are you hearing on the hill from democrats and republicans about that particular moment and any sort of long lasting affects it might have? >> well, clearly, that was the one moment the republicans jumped on to say, look, this is the problem. the problem is that the administration didn't call it an act of terrorism. right off the bat. there was a story trotted out about a spontaneous demonstration and this growing out of this demonstration and that's the point of republicans all along. the administration misled the public n. this case, you have the secretary of state saying what's the difference between the two things and made them even angrier. however, secretary clinton opposed to other officials is saying that from a point where she had originally come out and said this was an attack by armed militant
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3 (some duplicates have been removed)